The War to Bear Arms in
the City of the Angels

No one should have to choose between carrying the means for defending themselves and their loved ones against the criminally insane among us - and risking criminal charges - or obeying the law by leaving their means of defense at home and therefore being defenseless. This is the choice that people in most American cities have to make. Here in Los Angeles, I decided to do something about it. - JNS




Remarks to the Los Angeles
Board of Police Commissioners

July 16, 1991

After Schulman identifies himself as speaking for the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment:

Madam President and Members of the Commission, I do not sit before you seeking to make it easier for criminals and mental incompetents to carry firearms. They find it too easy already - far easier than I do, for they are not afraid of the law, and I am.

But the Los Angeles Police Commission's guidelines for issuing licenses to carry concealed firearms is in clear opposition to the words of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Let me quote both:

The independent clause from the fourth paragraph of the "Board Policy Concerning Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons" states, "[I]t is the policy of this Board that 'good cause' for the issuance of any concealed weapons license would exist only in the most extreme and aggravated circumstances."

And, the independent clause from the Second Amendment is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment does not say the right of the militia, or police, or the National Guard. It says "the right of the people."

The Founding Fathers, in their good sense, knew that a free society requires its citizens - the people themselves - to take responsibility for the defense of themselves, their loved ones, and their neighbors, and that such responsibility requires being armed to fulfill it.

We live in a city where violent crime is epidemic and the police are incapable of protecting the citizens from it. Your own former police chief, Ed Davis, said as much in a well-publicized speech.

When you deny a citizen a firearms permit because in your opinion there is no "extreme and aggravated circumstance," you take upon yourself a discretion that the Constitution does not permit you. The Constitution says you may not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I think we can agree that leaves out convicted criminals and mental incompetents. Use your discretion all you can to keep them from getting and carrying guns.

But the Constitution forbids you from denying the right to carry firearms to the people - we honest, law-abiding citizens.

California Penal Code Section 12050 authorizes you to issue a license to carry a concealed weapon provided that the person is of good moral character and that good cause exists for issuance of the license. The "good cause" is the requirement of the Second Amendment that the people's right to carry arms not be infringed.

I am calling upon you to fulfill your obligation under California law, and most specifically the highest law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, to revise your policy for issuing licenses to carry firearms, so that any sane, adult citizen may carry firearms for the protection of her or his life, loved ones, and neighbors.

Thank you.




The Case for a Concealed Weapon's License in Los Angeles

A Refutation of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners' Policy Concerning Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons

I originally wrote this immediately after the April, 1992 Los Angeles riots as my personal case to the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners for a license to carry concealed weapons. Later, I updated it and eliminated arguments applicable only to myself personally, so it could be used by other applicants. I have edited it for the current book to eliminate some duplication of arguments found elsewhere in it. - JNS

The Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners takes the position that the private citizen can be adequately protected on the streets of Los Angeles without the need for carrying firearms for personal protection. This position is reflected in the Board Policy Concerning Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons, which reads as follows:

By operation of California law, Penal Code Section 12050, the Board of Police Commissioners has the discretionary authority to issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to a resident of the county provided that the person is of good moral character and that good cause exists for issuance of the license.

However, experience has revealed that concealed firearms carried for protection not only provide a false sense of security but further that the licensee is often a victim of his own weapon or the subject of a civil or criminal case stemming from an improper use of the weapon.

It is the Board's considered judgment that utilization of standard commercial security practices furnishes a security which is both more safe and more sure than that which obtains from the carrying of a concealed weapon.

For these reasons, considering the dangers to society resulting from possession and use of concealed weapons, it is the policy of this Board that 'good cause' for the issuance of any concealed weapons license would exist only in the most extreme and aggravated circumstances.

First, I will argue that the Board's policy regarding what constitutes "good cause" under PC 12050 is based on a set of incorrect facts and assumptions in general; and in specific, that the Board's prior requirements regarding "good cause" are further inapplicable following the riots, murders, lootings, and torchings following the Rodney King beating verdict;

Second, I will demonstrate that the Board's policy proceeds on a misunderstanding of the discretion regarding "good cause" that the Board is allowed under PC 12050, as that law must be interpreted according to the California Constitution; and

Third, I will demonstrate that for the average person there are no reasonable alternatives to firearms for defense.

I. Good Cause

In satisfying my first argument, let me analyze the Board Policy in detail.

A. The Board Policy states, "However, experience has revealed that concealed firearms carried for protection not only provide a false sense of security but further that the licensee is often a victim of his own weapon or the subject of a civil or criminal case stemming from an improper use of the weapon."

The first statement is that concealed firearms carried for protection provide a "false sense of security."

The studies by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. [detailed throughout this book - JNS] document the frequency with which firearms are used in defense by the civilian population.

The Board's position can additionally be refuted by reference to three incidents involving individuals I have personally interviewed where concealed firearms carried for protection have provided real protection, rather than a false sense of security.

The first case is that of Montebello, CA Reserve Police Officer Justin Feffer. After changing to plainclothes and going off-duty, in a 1991 incident, Officer Feffer drove to his home in Los Angeles County when he was attacked by a gang of "follow-home" robbers who did not know that he was a police officer and was carrying a concealed .45 caliber semi-auto pistol. Officer Feffer was confronted by the robbers, and successfully defended himself against them by drawing his weapon and firing at them, fatally wounding one of the attackers, and driving the others away. I have interviewed Officer Feffer, and it is his judgment that his police training gave him no special advantage over any private citizen who is trained in the use of firearms, in the circumstances of defending himself against attack.

The second case is that of Thomas Glenn Terry. [See A Massacre We Didn't Hear About. - JNS]

The third case took place at midnight on Friday, September 18th, 1992. [See Gunfight at the 4 'n 20 Pie Shop.- JNS]

Numerous other examples of successful use of a firearm in self-defense have been compiled by the National Rifle Association, drawn from published newspaper accounts, and republished in the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column in American Rifleman and American Hunter. Since 1977, the "Armed Citizen" column has begun with the following statement, which is verified by the thousands of accounts that column has published, "Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances as shown by news reports sent in to The Armed Citizen. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life or limb, or in some circumstances, property. The accounts are from clippings sent in by NRA members. Anyone is free to quote or reproduce them." Many of these accounts have also been republished in the book The Armed Citizen, edited by Joseph B. Roberts, Jr.

Finally, in sworn testimony to a legislative committee of the Texas legislature, Dr. Suzanna Gratia, a survivor of the restaurant massacre of 23 people in Killeen, Texas on October 16, 1991, who lost both of her parents in that massacre (as reported by the San Antonio Express-News of Feb. 13, 1992) said, "I'm not saying that I could have stopped this guy, but I would have had a chance." According to the Express-News, Dr. Gratia had left her gun in her car because it was a crime to carry it in her purse and she didn't want to be arrested. "The point of this is," Dr. Gratia said, "someone legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my loved ones."

B. The second claim in the Board Policy "that the licensee is often a victim of his own weapon or the subject of a civil or criminal case stemming from an improper use of the weapon," is likewise false.

[The Kleck study provides the first refutation.- JNS]

Since the City of Los Angeles has not issued a license to carry a concealed firearm since 1974, it is impossible to provide current statistics for Los Angeles, beyond the clear statement that with no licenses available, there has been no possible licensed use of concealed firearms by private citizens, proper or improper. Similarly, since so few licenses are issued by other similar-sized municipalities in California - Santa Monica has also issued no licenses for over 25 years, and the County of Los Angeles currently has fewer than 400 licenses out - one must go to another populous state for a sizable database, which disproves the Board's claim.

For the past five years, Florida has had a liberal policy on issuing concealed-carry-weapons permits: a citizen who can pass a background check and prove competency in firearms safety and usage, can get a license.

According to the Division of Licensing, Florida Department of State, out of 133,852 applications received between October 1, 1987 and July 31, 1992, 476 were denied for criminal history and 93,541 licenses were issued. Revoked for crime after licensure: 84 (9 one hundredths of 1%). Revoked for a crime utilizing a firearm: 17 (2 one hundredths of 1%). Revoked for "other": 12 (1 one hundredth of 1%). These statistics show that there is no significant danger to the public from the misuse of firearms by holders of concealed-carry weapons permits in Florida, and it would be odd indeed if the Board were to hold that the citizens of Florida are in any sense more prudent or careful than the citizens of California.

C. The Board policy claims that, "It is the Board's considered judgment that utilization of standard commercial security practices furnishes a security which is both more safe and more sure than that which obtains from the carrying of a concealed weapon. This judgment is in accord with the view of the California Peace Officers Association - expressed formally on two occasions in 1968 and 1973 'that all permits to carry concealed weapons by private individuals in the State of California be revoked and that the legislation authorizing the issuance of such permits be repealed.'"

"Standard commercial security practices" are entirely inapplicable and inappropriate to the discussion of individual self-defense, in that (1) it presumes that a private individual has the resources to hire an armed, uniformed guard to provide security to an individual while on the street; (2) such a presumption could only apply to the wealthy businessperson who could afford, or whose company could afford, to provide such protection, and such presumption is discriminatory against all but the wealthy; (3) it presumes that armored vehicles capable of withstanding armed assault are possible or appropriate transportation for private citizens, which is discriminatory against all but the wealthy; and (4) it presumes that any emergency response system which is capable of summoning either police or armed guards is available to a private citizen who is alone on the street, and that even with an available telephone, a private person on the street would be able to evade an attacker in order to call for help, or persuade an attacker to cease attack while the victim calls police for help. All of these assumptions are highly improbable and useless for a realistic discussion of personal defense of the ordinary person against violent attackers.

Regarding the opinion of the California Peace Officers Association from 1968 and 1973, it is not in accord with the views of police officers as collected in a survey conducted in 1991.

In a survey of 25,000 subscribers to Law Enforcement Technology Magazine, the results of which were published in the July/August 1991 issue of that magazine, 92.7% of chiefs, sheriffs, and top police management, 91.1 percent of police middle management, and 94.5% of street officers, responded "Yes" to the question, "Should private citizens use handguns for personal protection?" In addition, 60% of chiefs, sheriffs, and top police management, 68% percent of police middle management, and 73% of street officers, responded "No" to the question, "Do you support a ban on concealed weapons?"

D. The Board's policy has presumed either that violent criminal attack is infrequent enough that the ordinary person is unlikely to need protection or that in the event of an attack that the ordinary person can safely rely on the emergency response system to summon police quickly enough for effective protection against such an attack.

1. Starting with the general and moving to the more specific, the report of the 4th National Poll of America's Police Chiefs for the Year 1991, which polled every sheriff and chief of police in the United States, provided the answer that 72.3% of those police personnel polled responded "Yes" to the question, "Would you agree with the statement that because of a lack of police manpower that you can no longer provide the type of service and crime prevention activities that you did ten years ago?"

2. Moving the question specifically to Los Angeles, 64% of Los Angeles residents felt that their city was unsafe, according to a Gallup poll conducted in 1990.

3. Los Angeles has 229 police officers per 100,000 residents - lower than Washington D.C., (658), Detroit (458), Chicago (396), Philadelphia (379), Atlanta (356), Boston (352), New York (351), Dallas (248), or Houston (239), and in 1989 (latest available statistics) had 9,272 crimes per 100,000 residents (sixth in the nation), including 25 homicides per 100,000 (ninth in the nation).

Clearly, Los Angeles residents have had a reason to feel unsafe on the streets. An increase in violent crimes such as follow-home robberies, automobile theft at gunpoint, and crimes where individuals were robbed when auto accidents were staged requiring victims to exit their vehicles to exchange licenses, speaks clearly to that lack of safety, even during "normal" times. The Board's underlying assumption about the lack of necessity for concealed weapons was questionable even before the riots, looting, and hate crimes following the Rodney King beating trial verdict caused the city to erupt into civil unrest.

After the events following the Rodney King beating trial verdict, there can be no further question. As of May 3, 1992, we saw thousands of buildings either burned or destroyed by looting; we had over 50 deaths, most by gunfire, and several thousand injuries - several hundred of them critical injuries.

It took four nights of city-wide curfews, 5,000 of Los Angeles Police, 2,370 California Highway Patrol, 2,195 outside agency law-enforcement personnel, 7,000 National Guard, 1,000 Federal law-enforcement personnel, and 4,500 U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps troops - an armed force of approximately 22,065 to pacify the city. But for the first two days of violence, police and National Guard manpower was almost entirely incapable of providing any sort of protection of life or property to the population of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Compton, and other areas of Los Angeles County.

A significant number of the attacks were racially-motivated hate crimes. Matthew Haines of Long Beach, described in a Los Angeles Times report as a "white 32-year-old mechanic," was, according to the Times, "gunned down after he was stopped by a mob of black men and teenagers as he and his nephew, Scott Coleman, 26, rode Haines' motorcycle to a friend's apartment in Long Beach."

Reginald Denny, a trucker, was pulled from his truck and beaten to within an inch of his life by a mob in South Central Los Angeles. Denny was white, the mob was black -there is no question that it was a hate crime. It was only by the intervention of black good Samaritans that Denny was not killed.

A list of fatalities published by the Los Angeles Times of Sunday, May 3, 1992 (Page A-10), includes the following:

Wednesday:

8:15 PM: Louis Watson, 18, of West 43rd Place was fatally wounded by a gunshot to the head at a bus stop at Vernon and Vermont Avenues.

Moments later: Dwight Taylor, a 42-year-old black man, was fatally shot at 446 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

9:00 PM: Arturo Miranda, 20, of West 120th Street was fatally shot in his car at 120th Street and Central Avenue.

9:26 PM: Edward Travens, a 15-year-old white youth, was killed in a drive-by shooting at San Fernando Road and Workman Street in the San Fernando Valley community of Mission Hills. Coroner's officials said they had reason to believe it was linked to racial unrest.

10:40 PM: Anthony Netherly, 21, a black man, was fatally shot at 78th and San Pedro Streets.

11:15 PM: Elbert Wilkins, 33, a black man, died at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center after being shot in the back at 92nd Street and Western Avenue.

11:45 PM: Ernest Neal Jr., 27, a black man, died after being shot in the head in the same incident at 92nd Street and Western Avenue.

Thursday:

12:10 AM: Ira McMurry, 45, a white man, was fatally shot at 102nd Street and Avalon Boulevard. McMurry was shot in the head when he tried to stop looters from burning the liquor store next to his house.

12:30 AM: Deandre Harrison, a 17-year-old black youth, was shot at 114th Street and Slauson Avenue and later died at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center.

12:30 PM: An unidentified black man died of gunshot wounds at Rosecrans and Chester Avenues in Compton.

1:30 PM: After flying to Los Angeles to inspect his machine shop, Howard Epstein of Orinda, Calif. was shot to death near 7th and Slauson Avenues and his car was ransacked by looters.

1:35 PM: Jose L. Garcia Jr., 15, died of gunshot wounds at Fresno Street and Atlantic Avenue.

5:00 PM: Patrick Bettan, 30, a white male, died of gunshot wounds suffered at 2740 W. Olympic Boulevard.

5:32 PM: A 49-year-old Latino male was gunned down at 3rd Street and Vermont Avenue.

About 6:30 PM: Matthew Haines fatally shot.

9:37 PM: Eduardo Vela, a 34-year-old Latino male, died of gunshot wounds, suffered at 5142 W. Slauson Avenue.

Time unknown: A man was found shot to death at Willowbrook Avenue and Alondra Boulevard.

Time unknown: A man was shot to death at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Rhea Street.

8:21 PM: A 32-year-old male Latino was stabbed to death at 2034 W. Pico Blvd.

Friday:

12:52 AM: A 25-year-old Latino male died of gunshot wounds suffered at Vermont Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard.

1:10 AM: Kevin Evanahen, 24, died while trying to put out a fire at a check-cashing store at Braddock Drive and Inglewood Boulevard.

4:45 PM: Meeker Gibson, 35, a black male, was shot to death at Holt Street and Loranne Avenue in Pomona.

Time unknown: A 19-year-old Latino male was shot to death at 4028 Santa Monica Boulevard.

Time unknown: A black male was shot to death at 614 S. Locust St. in Compton.

Time unknown: A male Latino was brought dead on arrival to County-USC Medical Center with a gunshot wound. The location of the shooting was not known.

1:58 PM: Lucie Maronian, 51, a female Anglo, was stabbed to death on East New York Drive in Altadena. The coroner said sheriff's investigators considered the case to be riot-related.

Early evening: A 68-year-old white male was strangled at a looting scene at 11690 Gateway St. Coroner's officials said the man might have been a store proprietor trying to stop looting.

8:19 PM: A 32-year-old black man died of a gunshot wound at Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital.

In Koreatown, merchants unable to get any police protection found themselves, and their firearms, the only thing standing between gangs of arsonists and looters and their stores.

Elsewhere in Los Angeles, citizens blocked off neighborhood streets and stood armed guard to prevent looters and arsonists from entering.

Clearly, the ordinary police force available to the City of Los Angeles to provide protection to the public is inadequate to extraordinary times ... and we are living in extraordinary times.

II. Board Discretion

I will now demonstrate that the Board's policy proceeds on a misunderstanding of the discretion regarding "good cause" that the Board is allowed under PC 12050, as that law must be interpreted according to the California Constitution.

Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution reads as follows: "All people are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." (as amended 7 November 1972.)

The California Constitution, itself, defines "good cause" for the purposes of PC 12050: good cause for carrying a firearm is defined as "defending life and liberty," "protecting property," and "pursuing and obtaining safety." The discretion mandated by PC 12050 to the Board is therefore on the question of "good moral character."

Further, not only do the people of California have these rights to defend and protect ourselves defined under the California Constitution, but the California Government Code specifically relieves all government entities and employees from any responsibility for protecting the public.

California Government Code, Section 845, states, "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Section 846 states, "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to retain an arrested person in custody."

Section 845.8 states, "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for (a) Any injury resulting from determining whether to parole or release a prisoner or from determining the terms and conditions of his parole or release or from determining whether to revoke his parole or release. (b) Any injury caused by (1) An escaping or escaped prisoner; (2) An escaping or escaped arrested person; or (3) A person resisting arrest."

Section 845.2 states, "Except as provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 830), neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide a prison, jail or penal or correctional facility, or, if such facility is provided, for failure to provide sufficient equipment, personnel, or facilities therein.

Clearly, California law provides no responsibility for the police to provide protection to the public, nor any liability whatsoever for failure to do so and just as clearly, the California Constitution defines the people themselves as the holder of both that right and the resulting responsibility.

III. Alternative Methods Of Defense

My exploration of alternative methods of defense prove them completely inadequate to defense against violent hate crimes or vicious attack.

Here are some of the alternative methods of defense I have looked into:

1. Martial Arts. Martial arts training requires that an individual, to be successful, must be physically fit and trained to such a high degree that one is capable of taking on several opponents at once. Even Los Angeles Police Officers are not professionally trained to that degree, and the martial artist who can be so trained, and maintain such a skill level, is rare. Further, Dr. Keith Kato, a second dan Black Belt in karate with a doctorate in physics, who has written a thesis on the physics of martial arts, has concluded that martial arts are of virtually no use against an attacker armed with a firearm, since the firearm can be successfully fired before the martial artist can come within range to disarm the attacker.

2. Chemical sprays. A chemical spray requires a direct hit on the upper body of an attacker. It must be used at the range of several feet distance, and at that range, an attacker can frequently disarm the victim of the spray before it can be used. Further, even if the spray hits the attacker under optimal conditions, an attacker who is full of adrenaline, or stimulants such as crack cocaine or PCP, or depressants such as alcohol or heroin, may be largely immune to the effects.

3. Stun Guns and Tasers. Stun guns, requiring direct contact between the defender and the attacker, have all the problems of martial arts and chemical sprays. As we saw in the Rodney King beating videotape, even under conditions used by a trained professional such as Sergeant Stacey Koon, a Taser gun will not necessarily be effective in incapacitating the recipient of the Taser darts, and a Taser is a more powerful stun gun than is available to the public.

4. Knives. Knife-fighting is a high art, like martial arts, and unless a knife-fighter is so trained, she or he is more likely to be disarmed or defeated by an attacker than be able to use a knife successfully in a self-defense. Knife-fighting is effective only in close-range hand-to-hand combat, and the outcome of such combat is highly dubious for anyone who is not both in top form and in top physical condition. Further, private citizens are restricted from carrying a knife as a defensive weapon.

IV. Conclusions

We have seen that there is a clear and present danger to the lives of the citizens of Los Angeles from both epidemic daily crime and the extraordinary dangers from criminal attacks in the aftermath of the Rodney King beating trial acquittal.

Further, we have seen that the citizenry cannot rely upon organized law enforcement for protection or defense against such crime; that by law the people have the right to defend themselves; that there is no responsibility under the California Government Code for any public entity to provide protection to the public, and no liability to any public entity or employee for failure to protect the public.

We have strong evidence - both statistical and from case studies - that firearms in the hands of private citizens provide a defense that is superior to available alternatives, and that firearms in the hands of those licensed to carry them after a background check and minimal training represent no statistically significant threat to public order or safety.

No other conclusion can be reached than that the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners' Policy Concerning Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons is in error, and that the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles, as charged under PC 12050, must immediately resume issuing licenses to carry concealed weapons to citizens of Los Angeles County who can pass a background check showing good moral character.

As subsequent chapters will demonstrate, the Board of Police Commissioners was unable to refute the above arguments, and the Board Policywas revised within two years to ease the granting of licenses to carry concealed firearms by the City of Los Angeles. - JNS

Remarks to the Los Angeles
Board of Police Commissioners

November 3, 1992

Mr. President and Members of the Commission.

On May 4th of this year, while Los Angeles was still smoldering from the Los Angeles riots, I made application to you for a license to carry a concealed firearm. In those riots we saw Reginald Denny pulled from his truck and beaten senseless by criminal gangsters. Matthew Haines was pulled off his motorcycle and murdered by thugs. Dozens of innocent Angelenos were murdered on the streets and thousands more seriously injured, and during the first days of rioting LAPD did virtually nothing to protect the public.

The 1992 Los Angeles riots were a wake-up call on the lawlessness of our streets, but the body count during ordinary times isn't all that much less than during the riots.

The theory under which the citizenry is expected to remain unarmed in the face of a well-armed criminal population is that professional law-enforcement can provide the public adequate protection. If this was ever true, it is not true now. Further, California law places the responsibility for protection against criminals on the people, not on the police.

Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution says, "All people are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

California Government Code, Section 845, states, "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

You have issued not one single license to carry a firearm to an ordinary citizen of this city since 1974. Yet Penal Code Section 12050 requires you to issue licenses to citizens of good moral character who provide you with good cause.

In the name of heaven, what more good cause is there for a citizen of good moral character to carry a firearm than the fact that for every armed policeman in LA there are dozens of armed criminals running around?

It is intolerable for you to deny the citizens of your city the means of defending themselves against armed and violent criminals, when it is blatantly obvious that your department is incapable of defending the public and hides behind legal immunity whenever its failure destroys lives.

For at least one of you, it is also hypocrisy. When Mr. Yamaki felt it necessary to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm to protect himself, after uniformly denying these licenses to the citizens he is supposed to serve, why did he sneak off to another municipality so that this Commission could absolve itself of the responsibility? Why is Mr. Yamaki's safety worth more than those of the citizens of Los Angeles?

As it turns out, I no longer need to be subject to your decision. I have moved outside your jurisdiction, and I herewith notify you of that fact, as I agreed to do in my application. As such, I withdraw my application for a license to carry a concealed weapon.

My business here is ended. Yours, with the citizenry at whose pleasure you serve, is just beginning.

This second little address of mine to the Board of Police Commissioners got noticed, because of my having "outed" Commissioner Yamaki as a licensed gun carrier himself. I believe this was the political factor that caused the Board to decide to cut their political liabilities on the licensing question when a group of denied applicants filed suit against them. Here is how the Los Angeles Times - reluctantly, and in as minimal a fashion as possible - reported on what on any other issue would have been a major political scandal:

From the Los Angeles Times, Metro Section, November 4, 1992:

"In other action during the [Los Angeles Police] commission meeting, a speaker accused board member Michael R. Yamaki of hypocrisy for obtaining a concealed-firearm permit for himself from the Culver City Police Department while routinely voting against the granting of permits by the Los Angeles Police Department.

"J. Neil Schulman, a gun rights activist, noted that with the exception of a permit granted recently to Police Chief Willie L. Williams, the board has denied all concealed-gun permit requests since 1974.

"'When Mr. Yamaki felt it necessary to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm to protect himself, after uniformly denying these licenses to the citizens he is supposed to serve, why did he sneak off to another municipality so that this commission could absolve itself of the responsibility?' Schulman asked.

"Schulman received no response from the board, and when asked after the meeting about Schulman's allegations, Yamaki ignored the questions.

"However, Culver City Police Chief Ted Cooke confirmed that Yamaki had obtained a permit this year."




Guns Are Still "Equalizers"

California State Senator Teresa Hughes (D-Inglewood) is so frightened about becoming a violent-crime victim, when she must travel in the Los Angeles area, that the Senate has agreed to hire an off-duty Los Angeles Police Department sergeant at $30-an-hour for Hughes' personal protection, paid for by the taxpayers.

One of those taxpayers, who could not afford a $30-an-hour bodyguard, was Sherri Foreman, who died, along with her unborn child, after being stabbed during a carjacking attempt at an automatic teller machine in Sherman Oaks on March 30th.

It's easy to focus on the aristocratic unfairness of a state government providing a police bodyguard to the people's elected representative while the California Government Code, Section 845, denies any responsibility for the government to protect the people whom she represents: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

But given that the dangers to both the Teresa Hughes's and Sherri Foreman's are tragically obvious, must one be a gun nut to suggest that handguns are still "equalizers," making it possible for individuals to rely on themselves for effective protection?

Sylvia Hauser wouldn't think so. She's not a member of the NRA and even favors some gun control. But in January, 1989, when she was working a midnight shift at a convenience store in West Virginia, a 16-year-old drug abuser, two weeks out of a detention center, kidnapped her with a .22 revolver and forced her to drive into the mountains, where he raped her.

When he told her he was going to kill her, she had nothing more to lose in going for the .45 pistol she had hidden in her pocketbook. After several exchanges of gunfire, Sylvia Hauser was unshot; her attacker lay mortally wounded.

Sylvia Hauser is not an Annie Oakley. Her only training in firearms was when her husband spent a day showing her how to use the gun, 18 months earlier. Her advice to Teresa Hughes is, "I think that anyone can learn to handle a gun, and if you handle it enough so that you're not afraid of it, you'll be able to take care of yourself."

Paxton Quigley, who has taught 3,500 women how to use a gun for self-defense, as well as having been a bodyguard to celebrities such as Yoko Ono, believes not only that Senator Hughes's ability to get police protection denied to her constituents places her "above the law," but also that her reliance on a bodyguard for protection is misguided. "Even though she might feel comfortable," Quigley says, "she should know in fact that if someone decides to attack her, they'll attack the bodyguard first then she'll be next. If Senator Hughes is an independent woman...I would urge her to learn how to fight for self-defense and use a handgun for self-defense."

Hauser's and Quigley's advice is confirmed by a 1979-1985 National Crime Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows that a robbery victim who resists attack with a firearm is half as likely to be injured as a victim who either offers no resistance or resists using any other weapon (17.4% injured as opposed to 33.2% injured). Further, an assault victim who resists with a firearm stands only a 40% as great chance of injury as a victim who either doesn't resist at all or resists using any other weapon (12.1% as opposed to 29.9% injured).

It's illegal in California for a private citizen to carry a gun without a concealed-carry-weapon's license, and licenses are all but impossible to get in the most-dangerous California cities - unless you have political pull. The Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners has issued no CCW licenses to any ordinary Los Angeles resident since 1974. But Commissioner Michael Yamaki quietly obtained a license in 1992 from Police Chief Ted Cooke of Culver City. Evidently, Mr. Yamaki feels that firearms are useful for self-defense, but is fearful of extending that protection to the citizenry at large.

Such fears are groundless. Florida, which allows its citizens to carry firearms for protection after a background check and proof of competency, shows no danger to the public from licensed firearms carriers.

Teresa Hughes has precisely the same right to protection as every other California citizen. Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution states: "All people are by nature free and independent. They have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

If Senator Hughes is as concerned about her constituents' safety as she is about her own, then she should see that California adopts a concealed-carry weapons law modeled after Florida's. Otherwise, Sherri Foreman is just the latest in a long string of victims yet to come.




Los Angeles Revises Concealed-Weapons Policy

The Los Angeles Police Commission voted 4-0 last Tuesday, June 29, 1993 - two days before newly elected mayor Richard Riordan took office - to turn over the authority for issuing concealed-carry weapons licenses to the Chief of Police, and to adopt new CCW guidelines currently being written by LA City Attorney Byron Boeckman.

Okay, what's the big deal in that?

In 1974, when Tom Bradley was elected mayor of Los Angeles, he appointed a new police commission and told them he didn't want the City of Los Angeles issuing CCW licenses any more. The police commissioners, who serve at the pleasure of the mayor, complied by revoking the authority of the chief of police to issue CCW licenses, and took that authority upon itself. From 1974 until the present, the commission's board policy made obtaining CCW licenses all but impossible; for the 19 years this policy was in effect, the commissioners only once granted a license to carry - and that was in 1992, to their new Chief of Police, Willie Williams, who had not yet passed his qualifying exams as a California police officer, and was therefore not entitled to carry a gun.

But during that period, the Los Angeles Police Department gun detail accepted applications, forwarded them to an officer who always found insufficient reason to recommend that it be granted, and after a hearing before the police commissioners, they voted to turn the application down, regardless of how much danger there was to the applicant.

If there was someone the commissioners actually wanted to have a CCW license, they quietly called up Ted Cooke, Chief of Police of nearby Culver City - and so pro-gun he's part owner of the Beverly Hills Gun Club - and asked him to grant the license. Or they phoned LA County Sheriff Sherman Block who was sometimes willing to sign on the dotted line.

Adding insult to injury, Commissioner Michael Yamaki secretly slipped over to Culver City (he wasn't a resident) and got a CCW license for himself. So much for their official opinion that "concealed firearms carried for protection not only provide a false sense of security but further that the licensee is often a victim of his own weapon or the subject of a civil or criminal case stemming from an improper use of the weapon."

Meanwhile, a quarter of the gun owners polled by the Los Angeles Times just before the April, 1992 riots admitted to carrying illegally on occasion, and when Los Angeles gun owners got caught, were subjected to a misdemeanor conviction carrying a six-month sentence which deprived them of the right to own a gun entirely, as a condition of probation or parole.

After the LA riots, when thousands of Angelenos who'd been anti-gun changed their minds, it seemed a good time to try ending this impertinence. With firearms-activist, constitutional lawyer, and criminology professor Don Kates as attorney, and a prominent list of obviously-deserving plaintiffs, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Congress of Racial Equality - later joined by NRA - filed suit against the City of Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners for violating the state laws which required them to use their discretion in issuing CCW licenses. Saying "no" to everybody doesn't qualify as discretion, in previous California legal decisions.

City Attorney Boeckman advised his clients, the Board of Police Commissioners, that they were going to lose the suit, which would have placed the issuance of CCW licenses under court supervision, aside from costing the city a bundle in legal costs defending the suit.

The June 29th vote was a vote to settle. The terms are that if Los Angeles brings itself into compliance with state law and begins issuing licenses to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs, the law suit will be dropped in six months' time.

The new guidelines - proposed by Don Kates, and now being reviewed by Boeckman and Chief Williams - should be in place by around the middle of July.




How I (and 4 Million Friends) Successfully Fought City Hall

A couple of years ago I tried to start a gun-rights organization called CESA, the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment. It never grew very large because I soon found out that NRA and other organizations were starting to get into the very areas I wanted to focus on with a lot more vigor (particularly after the LA riots); but I started getting in touch with major gun rights theorists and activists regularly at that point.

I was particularly interested in the CCW (concealed-carry weapons) license issue, because California law says you can't carry a loaded gun without one, and it was almost impossible to get. (I stress "almost"; I found the way into one soon enough - but I had to move to do it.)

I called Don Kates, who's a well-known criminologist, professor of constitutional law, and a constitutional lawyer himself, and told him about the Board Policy of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, which, in essence, said that even though California Penal Code 12050 required them to consider issuing CCW licenses to county residents of good moral character who could show good cause for carrying a firearm, they didn't believe there were any good causes so they were going to make it as difficult as possible. They implemented this policy by denying all license applications for 19 years.

When I read that policy to Don and asked if it could be successfully overturned in court, he said, "Yes, but -" The "but" was the necessity of finding plaintiffs and getting money to pursue the lawsuit. I gave him a list of plaintiffs. He called Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, expressed his opinion that he could overturn the policy, and Alan agreed to write the checks.

Here's how I described it in the press release I wrote:

Reversing an apparent national trend of ever-increasing firearms restrictions on private citizens, the Los Angeles Police Department has resumed issuing licenses to carry concealed weapons to private citizens for the first time since 1974. The 4-0 vote to return issuing authority to Police Chief Willie Williams, approved June 29, 1993 as one of the final acts by the Mayor-Bradley-appointed Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, was instituted in response to a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Congress of Racial Equality, and later joined by the National Rifle Association, on behalf of individuals who had unlawfully been denied such licenses by the police commission's policy.

Security Consultant D. Ray Hickman, one of the plaintiffs in this suit and a similar federal lawsuit, will be receiving his license at the Gun Detail office at LAPD's Parker Center at 1:00 PM on Tuesday, September 7, 1993. Ironically, because the LAPD's Gun Detail did not have the equipment necessary to physically produce the licenses, plaintiffs in the lawsuit dug into their own pockets and donated a typewriter, a Polaroid camera, and a laminating machine to LAPD.

California Penal Code Section 12050 requires a city's chief of police to issue CCW licenses to county residents of good moral character who can show good cause. The state's legislatively-mandated licensing procedure specifies a two-page application form, requires a fingerprint background check with both the state Department of Justice and the FBI, lists the firearms to be carried on the license, and requires the licensee to show proficiency with the weapon carried.

The California Department of Justice is unaware of any cases where a person issued a California CCW license has used it for criminal activities.

The "good cause" requirement for obtaining a CCW license includes both business reasons such as risk because of one's profession or providing protection services to others, and personal reasons, such as threats to one's self or family. The requirement that chiefs of police issue CCW licenses to qualified individuals is enactment of Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which states, "All people are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

Contrary to popular opinion, neither state nor local government has any legal requirement to provide crime protection to a threatened individual, and no government entity or employee has any liability for failure to do so. (California Government Code Sections 845, 845.2, 845.8, and 846). Government entities and employees are also shielded from liability for issuing CCW licenses (California Government Code 818.4 and 821.2).

A quarter of the gun owners polled by the Los Angeles Times just before the April, 1992 riots admitted to carrying illegally on occasion.

If Police Chief Willie Williams issues CCW licenses in Los Angeles at a rate proportionate to the rate he issued them as Police Chief of Philadelphia - where he signed around 4000 CCW licenses - then Los Angeles should see approximately 10,000 licenses issued in the next few years.

Because of my involvement in this issue from the beginning, and several LA Times Op-Ed pieces I'd written demonstrating the usefulness of civilians carrying firearms by saving large groups of people, I got tapped to run the press conference in front of Parker Center at 1:00 PM on Tuesday, September 7, 1993. It turned out to be a media circus, with five TV crews, representatives from all the major radio stations in town, and the major Southern California newspapers. I had other people to shove in front of the TV cameras - Dan Gifford, a former ABC News and McNeill/Lehrer newsman who had got the first LAPD-issued CCW after Chief Williams, Elodie McKee, an actress and gun-rights activist, and Ray Hickman (referenced above), but I ended up being the person whom the radio and print media wanted to talk to, because Dan and Elodie were in front of the TV cameras, and Ray was upstairs at Parker Center getting his license.

So I got quoted a lot.

I had also just done an hour on Michael Jackson's talk show on KABC radio that morning, so it was a pretty busy day. I got the call from Jackson's producer at 9, was in studio an hour later, then after the show rushed home to field press inquiries and fax out more releases while I was trying to get into my suit to get downtown to Parker Center for the conference.

All in all, it's been a great victory for the gun-rights cause because we finally got some coverage of our point of view. My phone has been ringing constantly with inquiries by people who have good cause for carrying firearms and want to do whatever they can do to help. Three new local-area attorneys have signed into the cause - two from Beverly Hills. Yay!

I'll be working with a watchdog committee to track whether LAPD stays in compliance with the settlement terms. If they don't, the lawsuit will move forward in around six months or a year. But there's so much new pressure on them, I doubt they'll be effective at offering resistance, and they should be issuing a lot of licenses over the next few years.

Update, February, 1994: As of this writing, I am hearing reports that very few licenses have been issued; that the Los Angeles Police Department's Gun Detail telephone is busy all the time; and that applications are backed up at least six months without a response. I don't yet know if this is bureaucratic business-as-usual, or active resistance to issuing licenses from Chief Willie Williams's office. Either way, it seems that the City of Los Angeles is not in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement, and further legal pressure will need to be brought to bear. - JNS

[Update for this edition: The City of Los Angeles is now under a court-enforced consent decree, and all rejected applications are now reviewed by a citizen's review board. It's still a discretionary process to get a license to carry from the City of Los Angeles, but it's at least a process in which some deserving individuals can manage to get one, if they take the time and effort to apply properly, with a well-thought-out reason for carrying. Meanwhile, the California Assembly has passed AB 638 -- which would change California law to make issuance of licenses non-discretionary for qualified applicants -- and the bill is under consideration in the California state senate as of this writing. Whether it will pass or not is uncertain. - JNS, 1996]




The Thrill of My Life

Sunday, September 12, 1993

You know, being a writer is a lonely life. You work isolated at home, send out your work, and then, mostly, what you hear back is silence.

So when the value of one's work is recognized by the World Out There, it's a very big deal, and you note it down in the balance ledger of whether it's worthwhile to keep going or not.

I just had the thrill of my life. I was in front of my TV set, just about to go downstairs and remove my clothes from the dryer, when a commentary by KCBS Los Angeles anchorman Michael Tuck caught my eye.

Tuck started out by postulating a scenario in which other high school students would have been armed when one was shot and killed by a gang member a few days ago. He ranted, and raved, and foamed at the mouth against the "gun nuts" who would have armed the rest of the students, who would then have all pulled out their guns simultaneously, firing wildly in a cacophony not heard since Woodstock.

Mr. Tuck then talked about the lawsuit which I helped instigate, against the Los Angeles Police Department, which resulted in the LAPD once again obeying California law in its requirement that county residents of good moral character who can show good cause shall be issued licenses to carry concealed weapons. He ranted and raved, tossing around the phrase "gun nut" twice per sentence, then quoted me from Scott Harris's column in the September 6, 1993 Los Angeles Times - identifying me as a "ringleader" of those who filed the law suit - in which I stated, "It is a fundamental error in society to expect an elite group of professionals to provide public safety. In my view, public safety is everybody's job."

Then he called me a "gun nut" again, along with all the other gun nuts who think innocent people should be better armed than the criminals.

Wow.

I've had some thrills in my life, but this was the best.

It was thrilling when Anthony Burgess and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman lent their endorsements to my first novel.

It was thrilling when Robert Heinlein told me he laughed his ass off at the satirical parts of my second novel.

It was thrilling on two occasions when I twice received the Prometheus Award for my novels.

It was thrilling when the producer who gave Rod Serling his first job in television told me my 1985 Twilight Zone episode, "Profile in Silver," was in his opinion the only one which would have fit into the original show.

But to be called a ringleader of gun nuts by a news reader on a Sunday evening local broadcast, that has got to be the best.

Thank you, Michael Tuck. You made my day.

Go to Next Chapter.


Return to Table of Contents.